This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Court is not satisfied that the circumstantial evidence in this case constitutes an unbroken chain which leads to the conclusion that appellant, to the exclusion of all others, is guilty of killing his wife. The trial court relied on the testimonies of Malaran and Carpio who heard the appellant and his wife arguing about the latter's illicit relationship with another woman, which supposedly proves motive for him to commit the crime. However, granting that appellant and Betty had an argument on the night before her death, it would be too much to presume that such an argument would drive appellant to kill his wife. Clearly, the motive is not convincing. If at all, the testimonies of Malaran and Carpio merely show a suspicion of appellant's responsibility for the crime. Needless to state, however, suspicion no matter how strong can not sway judgment.[36] In the absence of any other evidence reasonably linking appellant to the crime, evidence of motive is not sufficient to convict him.[37] | |||||
|
2007-03-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that he did not intend to kill Eleuterio deserves scant consideration. The weapon used and the direction to which it was aimed, coupled with the location of the wound which is at the back of the head, unmistakably show an intent to kill.[11] If appellant simply wanted to stop the two from fighting, he should have thrown the bottle elsewhere and not aimed it towards the head of the victim. We likewise find it incredible for appellant not to know that the bottle contained explosives. It is highly improbable that such explosive material was left lying around in the premises. We thus agree with the trial court's finding:Accused himself admitted having thrown the explosive bottle albeit disclaiming knowledge of its contents and that it was specifically directed at the deceased, as according to him, it was merely his intention to pacify Policarpio and the deceased who were then exchanging fist blows. This Court finds this excuse of the accused flimsy because of the following considerations, to wit: | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As in all criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[26] We conclude that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not pass the test of moral certainty to warrant the conviction of accused-appellant for the death of Isauro. | |||||
|
2000-04-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (9) Stab wound, left costal region, measuring 1 by 2.5 cm, 2 cm from the anterior midline, 5 cm deep, directed downwards, posteriorwards and medialwards, lacerating the left lobe of the liver.[24] Dr. Gajardo testified that the stab wounds found at the front and back of the deceased could have been inflicted by a single-bladed weapon.[25] They could not have been caused by an ice pick. As clearly stated, an ice pick is a pointed circular shaft, not a pointed single-bladed weapon. A puncture wound resulting from an ice pick attack would obviously be different from that produced by a single-bladed weapon. It has been held that a cane knife, having a maximum width of five inches, cannot cause a fatal wound which is only one centimeter in length.[26] Conversely, an ice pick cannot create a surface wound that is more than one inch, such as stab wound no. 8, but would produce a wound so minuscule in length and width that it can be missed even by an experienced medical examiner. | |||||